The ITAT ruled that dismissing an appeal solely for non-compliance is contrary to law. The appellate authority is obligated to frame issues and pass a reasoned order on each ground raised.
Observing that the assessee invested the entire share of sale proceeds within two years and obtained possession, ITAT Pune allowed Section 54B exemption. The addition under Section 69A was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matter after holding that dismissal of the appeal without giving a chance to explain delay and cash deposits was not justified.
The Tribunal held that a plea of defective return due to unpaid tax cannot be accepted without examining the underlying income. The matter was remanded to verify whether the income was correctly reported or belonged to another year.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
The tribunal set aside the disallowance of deduction on interest earned from cooperative bank deposits. Consistent judicial precedents confirm eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d).
The decision limits tax exposure by holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed on an estimated profit basis when business records are accepted.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer had accepted a legally possible view. The Tribunal held that where two views exist and the AO adopts one, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
The Assessing Officer inferred undisclosed loans by applying a notional interest rate to declared interest income. The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69B cannot rest on assumptions ignoring the business model.
